There was a referendum in Gibaltar on whether to stay part of the UK or be dual-owned by the UK and Spain, the result was 99% in favour of just being part of the UK. That was before the EU referendum to be fair, where Gibraltar heavily voted in favour of staying in the EU, but I've not seen any evidence they want to leave the UK and be part of Spain.

You know, we too sold some property to Britain in the 17th century. A sale we'd never have made if we knew Britain was going to leave the EU. So I think it's only fair if you guys give us back New York Nieuw Amsterdam.

I'm starting to develop a rather intense dislike for Spain and their ridiculous whining about stuff like this. Gibraltar has been British longer than most nations in the world exist. Talking about wanting something back after 300 years is utterly ridiculous. Especially if 99% of the population does not want you.

I think the EU needs to take a hard line with Britain when it comes to negotiations. It's important that Britain's new position won't be more favorable than that of member states (otherwise what is the point of having an EU). But that doesn't mean we should be throwing in absurd and petty demands.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Diadem wrote:I'm starting to develop a rather intense dislike for Spain and their ridiculous whining about stuff like this

Spain is being difficult because they're desperately trying to prevent some of their own regions from trying for independence.

Yeah. It's funny to watch the British government now try to quash the separation of Scotland and Northern Ireland at the same time.

Dividing up into smaller nations inside a broad EU will look increasingly like the US. You've even got Germany as the California backbone.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Diadem wrote:I'm starting to develop a rather intense dislike for Spain and their ridiculous whining about stuff like this

Spain is being difficult because they're desperately trying to prevent some of their own regions from trying for independence.

Not just that. Gibraltar belonging to the UK has always rankled with Spain, and they've wanted it since time immemorial. It's a successful port town, and has strategic value as the gateway to the Mediterranean sea. But Gibraltar's status as UK territory has nothing to do with the EU. There is no logical reason for this to suddenly become a Thing again just because of Brexit. This is just EU leaders playing silly buggers, and it won't work. May has already said she thinks having no trade deal with the EU is better than a bad deal, and I don't think she's bluffing.

it does suggest a rarely seen honest cynicism from the eu. not caring about the facts of the matter so much as backing their super awesome club member regardless of merit. also doesn't spain have a number of exclaves in morocco and a portuguese city to give back while we're on this issue?How about we take it to the logical conclusion and give Gibraltar back to the moors who have it longer than either of them?

edit: 2 Portuguese cities and a municipality

Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Diemo wrote:She might not be bluffing, but if she isn't then she is an idiot.

Not sure if serious. The UK already does the majority of its overseas trade without the benefit of a trade deal. Having the remainder suddenly become subject to tariffs too would be unfortunate, but not exactly devastating. I think she's right to consider it an acceptable option, if the alternative is something designed to punish the UK (such as fucking with Gibraltar).

Diemo wrote:Spain has been trying to get Gibraltar back for ages, it is unsurprising that they would attempt to do so with Brexit.

The EU didn't demand Gibraltaras part of the Brexit, or anything like it. They said that Gibraltar would not automatically get the same trade deal as the UK, unless Spain agrees.

The issue here is that Gibraltar runs a variety of tax games, mostly at the detriment of Spain. All kinds of tricks with VAT and import levies, letterbox corporations, sham citizenship, gambling websites, the whole works.

Spain does not have much support in Europe for its sovereignity claims over Gibraltar, but it does have much more support for its attempts to shut down Gibraltar as tax haven. Now they want a free rein to freeze Gibraltar out of the EU economy, even in aspects where the UK might negotiate free trade access.

kingofdreams wrote:willfully attempting to tank the Gibraltarian economy does not feel reasonable

And willfully tanking the Spanish economy is? Let's be honest here, nobody would give a shit about the Cayman islands or Ireland except for it's tax sheltered status. Yes, there's tourism and strategic value, but they pale in comparison.Gibraltar is no different.

Not in the habit of defending 'tax havens' (although numerous still Eu members seem to have very similarly engineered economies) but Gibraltar claims to be in full compliance with Eu regulations and appears to be a net economic benefit to Cadiz especially given the number of Spaniards it employs. I fail to see how blighting them is meant to benefit Spains economy outside of it being a long held bugbear and rare source of unity between left and right.

Also don't see how including Gibraltar in the rest of whatever increasingly distant agreement is reached amounts to giving UK everything it wants. Not only has nothing of substance been said, but May didnt even go so far as to mention Gibraltar in invoking article 50.

the principle concerns seem to be negotiating trade at the same time as divorce, and securing access for the eurozone for financial services, both of which have already been shot down

no one seems to be moving a smegging inch

Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

Diemo wrote:Spain has been trying to get Gibraltar back for ages, it is unsurprising that they would attempt to do so with Brexit.

The EU didn't demand Gibraltaras part of the Brexit, or anything like it. They said that Gibraltar would not automatically get the same trade deal as the UK, unless Spain agrees.

The issue here is that Gibraltar runs a variety of tax games, mostly at the detriment of Spain. All kinds of tricks with VAT and import levies, letterbox corporations, sham citizenship, gambling websites, the whole works.

Spain does not have much support in Europe for its sovereignity claims over Gibraltar, but it does have much more support for its attempts to shut down Gibraltar as tax haven. Now they want a free rein to freeze Gibraltar out of the EU economy, even in aspects where the UK might negotiate free trade access.

Ahh, I assumed that they were not giving Gibralter the same tax deal as the UK in an attempt to force the people in Gibralter to join with Spain.

the principle concerns seem to be negotiating trade at the same time as divorce, and securing access for the eurozone for financial services, both of which have already been shot down

It is in the EU's interest to refuse to negotiate trade at the same time as the divorce. It is also in the EU's interest to refuse to provide passporting right to the UK.

Giving the UK a good deal would be extremely detrimental to the EU, which is already facing existential pressure that is being exacerbated by the EU.

It is also not like any of this is a surprise. TheLeaveRemain campaign warned of all of this and still lost.

Diemo wrote:Giving the UK a good deal would be extremely detrimental to the EU, which is already facing existential pressure that is being exacerbated by the EU.

How so? They get to continue trading under good terms with a major economic power, and they get to look magnanimous.

It is also not like any of this is a surprise. The Leave campaign warned of all of this and still lost.

No, the Leave campaign won. It was kind of a big deal. Made headlines and everything.

You're quite blase about the potential dissolution of a massive institution. Are you naive or optimistic? The point is, the Europeans are pissed and want the UK to be executed in public as a warning to others.

I'm talking about rational self-interest, which has nothing to do with optimism or naivete. If saner heads prevail, then they will negotiate in good faith. If they want to make an example, they'll offer a crap deal they know the UK will reject. My estimation is that the latter outcome will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK.

SlyReaper wrote:I'm talking about rational self-interest, which has nothing to do with optimism or naivete. If saner heads prevail, then they will negotiate in good faith. If they want to make an example, they'll offer a crap deal they know the UK will reject. My estimation is that the latter outcome will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK.

I don't see how this follows. The purely economic perspective would lead to treating the UK no better than any other potential trade partner at best. Sure, they might be a large trade partner for now (8-17% of export according to this which will probably shrink drastically once they are no longer in the Eurozone) but the EU can weather losing trade with the UK much easier than the other way around. On a rational clear-headed level the situation favors a deal even less- EU is supposed to be about compromises and unity while the Leave campaign and by extension England has positioned itself as the opposition to that view. A deal that's seen as favorable to the UK would be disastrous in that respect even if it were slightly better economically in the short term.

Diemo wrote:Giving the UK a good deal would be extremely detrimental to the EU, which is already facing existential pressure that is being exacerbated by the EU.

How so? From an economic point of view, they get to continue trading under good terms with a major economic power. From a political point of view, they get to look level-headed and magnanimous.

nah, because there are large segments of other populations that are trying to get the EU to break up. Giving the UK a good deal would make it more likely that people will support leaving the EU, and therefore make the breakup of the EU more likely. I like the EU, it is working to unify Europe (into a sort of States deal), which I support. A bigger country means more bargaining power, and make a war much much less likely (not that I think a war is likely, but still).

It is also not like any of this is a surprise. The Leave campaign warned of all of this and still lost.

No, the Leave campaign won. It was kind of a big deal. Made headlines and everything.

Heh. Quite a typo

In the beginning the Universe was created.This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.--Douglas Adams

SlyReaper wrote:I'm talking about rational self-interest, which has nothing to do with optimism or naivete. If saner heads prevail, then they will negotiate in good faith. If they want to make an example, they'll offer a crap deal they know the UK will reject. My estimation is that the latter outcome will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK.

The UK leaving the EU with no deal at all would be catastrophic for the UK. The idea that the EU would have more to lose from it is absurd.

"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

Also, you can't simply consider the situation in isolation. Sure, if the UK were the only country who might ever threaten to leave, it might be in the EU's rational self-interest to be generous. But this is a situation that could play out repeatedly - which would definitely weaken the EU - so rational self-interest might work out to be 'pay an additional cost now (by enforcing a worse deal for both sides) to avoid a bigger cost later'.

I'm talking about rational self-interest, which has nothing to do with optimism or naivete. If saner heads prevail, then they will negotiate in good faith.

And of course, if saner heads and rational self-interest had prevailed, there would be no Brexit. Right?

I assume that you disagree with that statemen. Rational self-interest is not a simple fact to be looked up in a book, it's widely disputed. Within a country, and definitely between countries. Kingofdreams above argues that Gibraltar is currently in Spain's benefit, while Spain clearly disagrees. Some years ago, the UK government was an enthusiast supporter of Polish immigration - today they want to curtail it, and are willing to go far to achieve it. And blue passports! Very important rational self interest, or not?

The UK wants more leeway to set its own course according to its own perceived self-interest. Turns out, other countries have their own list of grievances, issues where they perceive that the UK is hurting their self-interest. It's like the Brexit side is completely surprised by that - as if rational actors will agree with the UK on everything, and every deviation from that line must be self-damaging punishment.

My estimation is that the latter outcome will hurt the EU more than it will hurt the UK.

In hindsight, that's too confident a thing to say for anyone who doesn't have access to a crystal ball or time machine. However, I think it's still fair to say that cutting the UK off will hurt the EU to some degree, especially in the long term.

Most EU free trade agreements require unanimity. When you have 28 (soon to be 27) squabbling nations all with competing interests, that's very difficult to achieve. Meanwhile, an FTA between the UK and another country, in principle, only requires the consent of those two countries (depending on whatever arrangements the other country has already made, of course). So while the EU is locked into its walled garden, the UK can freely court trade agreements all over the world. Thus, even if the UK takes the bigger hit in the short term, it may be better positioned to recover from that injury.

That's the line of reasoning for the UK being better off financially outside the EU. The main objection to that, which I heard during the campaign, was that the UK would almost certainly stay in the single market, and thus still be prevented from making such agreements. That no longer seems to be the case.

SlyReaper wrote:So while the EU is locked into its walled garden, the UK can freely court trade agreements all over the world. Thus, even if the UK takes the bigger hit in the short term, it may be better positioned to recover from that injury.

Possibly, but the EU has serious clout to demand good trade deals: Collectively they are the biggest economy in the world.

We go into trade negotiations from a position of weakness on several grounds: Not only does everyone know that we will be desperate for agreements so can push a hard bargain, we have to negotiate all agreements at the same time, spreading our diplomatic expertise - which we're having to rapidly recruit anyhow - very thin.

Take India for example - they are reportedly demanding we allow plenty of work visas, cutting into one of the main reasons for exiting the EU which is slowing immigration.

Sure, over the long run who can really say, but it's likely to be a pretty painful next decade - and we're not yet recovered from the last painful decade...

It is a nice example of the British attitude towards the EU. For someone from a smaller EU member state (like me) such harmonization sounds good.

Yes, exactly. Once again someone managed to paint a key benefit as a 'drawback' based on some vague, feel-good notion of jingoism.

Heck, even as no longer part of the EU there would be big efficiency savings in only commissioning a single, pan-Euro design for next-gen secure passporting. Even if we only saved 10% on our £500m bill that would still be £50m that can go towards the salaries of teachers and doctors.

Plus, maybe it would mean UK citizens not having to fork out £70+ for a passport renewal...(!)

I remember the old passports as more black than blue: they must have been a very very dark blue.

The e-passports don't seem to be as standardised as all that. In particular the photo page doesn't always seem to be on the same side. I recently went through an automatic passport gate at the Gare du Nord : you have to put your passport face down on the reader, but the animation showing which way to put it was wrong for my passport, which was particularly odd considering it was a UK Border gate and a British passport. (The photo is on a right-hand page with the top towards the spine).

Soupspoon wrote:But, remember that the UK is the 5th largest world economy, as Leave kept telling us.

It was, but that may have been due to not making economically damaging decisions in the past. Things might change here.

I think the UK sans Scotland would be below France in nominal GDP (At least going by IMF data. According to the world bank the gap is much larger. My guess is the world bank data is slightly older, when the pound was still a bit stronger). So yeah, a Brexit could indeed threaten Britain's status as the world's 5th economy. Though in the longer run India is going to take that place anyway.

Of course if you count the EU as one economy then brexit takes Britain from not even in the top100 to 4th place. A truly meteoric rise.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

It all happening ....UK exits from Europe, Gibraltar is demanding another referendum to go with UK, Scotland is leaned towards Canada and most importantly to stabilize the economy more immigrants are needed in UK

Bane Harper wrote:It all happening ....UK exits from Europe, Gibraltar is demanding another referendum to go with UK, Scotland is leaned towards Canada and most importantly to stabilize the economy more immigrants are needed in UK

Is Scotland actually leaning toward Canada? The only thing I can find about this traces back to a single op-ed in a Canadian newspaper.